OPINION AND EDITORIALS

18-12-2019
TODAY'S PAPER | DECEMBER 18, 2019

Former military dictator

Musharraf handed death
sentence in high treason case
Rana Bilal | Naveed Siddiqui | Haseeb Bhatti Updated December 17, 2019

A three-member special court announced its verdict in the long-

drawn high treason case against former military ruler Pervez
Musharraf today.
A special court in Islamabad on Tuesday found former
military ruler retired Gen Pervez Musharraf guilty of high
treason and handed him a death sentence under Article 6
of the Constitution.
This is the first time in Pakistan's history that a military chief has
been declared guilty of high treason and handed a death sentence.
The verdict was split 2-1.
Article 6 of the Constitution says: “Any person who abrogates or
subverts or suspends or hold in abeyance, or attempts or conspires
to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance the
Constitution by use of force or show force or by any other
unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason."
The punishment for high treason is death or lifetime imprisonment,
according to the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973.
The three-member bench of the special court — headed by Peshawar
High Court Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth and comprising Justice
Nazar Akbar of the Sindh High Court (SHC) and Justice Shahid
Karim of the LHC — announced the verdict in the long-drawn high
treason case against Musharraf after hearing final arguments today.
A detailed verdict will be issued in 48 hours.
The former military chief is currently in Dubai in the United Arab
Emirates. He was admitted to a hospital following deterioration of
his health earlier this month. In a video statement from his hospital
bed, he called the treason case "absolutely baseless”. “I have served
my country for 10 years. I have fought for my country. This [treason]
is the case in which I have not been heard and I have been
victimised,” he had stated.
His team can appeal today's verdict in the Supreme Court. If the top
court upholds the special court's verdict, the president possesses the
constitutional authority under Article 45 to pardon a death row
defendant.
Dawn's Front Page on Nov 4, 2007.
The high treason trial of the former military dictator for imposing
the state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007, had been pending since
December 2013. Musharraf came to power after ousting then-Prime
Minister Nawaz Sharif in a 1999 bloodless coup. In an infamous
purge in 2007, Musharraf imposed a state of emergency and placed
several key judges under house arrest in Islamabad and elsewhere in
Pakistan.
He was booked in the treason case in December 2013, when the
PML-N government under Nawaz returned to power. Musharraf was
indicted on March 31, 2014, and the prosecution had tabled the
entire evidence before the special court in September the same year.
However, due to litigation at appellate forums, the trial of the former
military dictator lingered on and he left Pakistan in March 2016 to
seek medical treatment, promising to come back to his "beloved
homeland" in a few weeks.
The special court was reformed six times during the course of the
case.
Delayed verdict
The verdict announced by the special court today was the one it had
reserved on November 19.
The special court at that time had said it would announce the verdict
on Nov 28 on the basis of available record. However, days before the
final verdict was to be announced, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf
(PTI) government sought deferment of the announcement of the
verdict and in a fresh petition, requested the Islamabad High Court
that “the special court be restrained from passing final judgement in
the trial”.
Subsequently, on November 27, the IHC stopped the special court
from issuing its verdict reserved in the case on November 19.
Additionally, they directed the government to notify a prosecution
team by December 5.
On December 5, the new prosecution team for the
government appeared before the special court after which the special
court adjourned proceedings till December 17, adding that it would
hear arguments and announce the verdict on the same day.
Court displeased with additional petitions
At the outset of today's hearing, the government's prosecutor,
Advocate Ali Zia Bajwa, said that they had submitted three petitions
today.
One of the petitions asked that the court make three individuals —
former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, former Supreme Court chief
justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and former law minister Zahid Hamid
— suspects in the case.
"We want to make Musharraf's facilitators and companions suspects
as well. It it important that the trial of all suspects is held at the same
time," the prosecutor said.
"Submitting such a request after three and a half years means the
government doesn't have the right intentions. Today the case was set
for final arguments and now new petitions have been submitted,"
remarked Justice Karim.
Justice Akbar questioned the lawyer regarding the evidence against
the individuals that the government wanted to include in the case.
"The stage of investigations and [presenting] evidence has passed.
Has there been a new investigation against the included suspects?"
he asked, in response to which the prosecutor said that an
investigation can only be carried out after the complaint is
registered.
The prosecutor said that according to a 2014 petition, Shaukat Aziz
had told Musharraf to impose emergency.
Justice Akbar remarked that the prosecutor was referring to
Musharraf's petition in which the verdict has been reserved while
Justice Karim added that the Supreme Court has also issued a verdict
on a petition regarding other suspects.
Justice Akbar said two weeks had been earlier granted to the
government to present a modified charge sheet. "As per the law,
charged can be amended anytime before the verdict," responded the
prosecutor.
"If you want to further make anyone a suspect, submit a new case,"
said Justice Karim, asking: "Does the government want to delay
Musharraf's trial?"
"If three individuals are made suspects, the government should also
submit requests to make the former cabinet and corps commanders
suspects," he added.
Justice Karim said that without the court's permission, indictments
cannot be amended. Justice Akbar added that no formal request had
been received by the court for changes to the charge sheet.
"Without the court's permission, no new request can be submitted,"
said Justice Karim, adding: "We will not hear arguments on a
request that was not formally submitted."
"The prosecution doesn't even know how to submit a request in the
court," remarked Justice Akbar, at which the prosecutor apologised.
"Your purpose was just to get through today," the judge noted.
Justice Karim asked how the interior secretary can amend the charge
sheet without the approval of the cabinet. "Where is the approval of
the federal government and the cabinet? According to a Supreme
Court verdict, the federal government means the cabinet," he said.
He added that if the government doesn't want there to be a delay, it
can submit a new request against the other suspects.
A second prosecutor, Munir Bhatti, said the former prosecutor had
hidden facts from the court. In October, the special court was
informed that the government had sacked the entire prosecution
team engaged by the previous PML-N government to prosecute the
high treason case against Musharraf.
"What action has the government taken against the former
prosecutor?" asked Justice Akbar.
Justice Karim said with regards to the federal government, the apex
court has issued directives in the Mustafa Impex case. "After the
Supreme Court's directive is issued, the federal cabinet can make a
decision, not the interior secretary," he said.
In the Mustafa Impex case, the Supreme Court had ultimately struck
down notifications which were not issued with the approval of the
cabinet.
It is pertinent to mention that the special court last month had also
reserved its verdict in the long-drawn high treason case. However,
an Islamabad High Court (IHC) order on November 27 — a day
before the special court was set to announce its verdict — stopped
the special court from doing so after the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf
(PTI) government sought deferment of the announcement of the
verdict.
Request to record Musharraf's statement
Musharraf's counsel Advocate Raza Bashir said he had submitted a
request to record his client's statement via Section 342 of the CrPC,
adding that his client should be given the right to a fair trial.
"Supreme Court had ended the right to record his statement via
Section 342," Justice AKbar responded, adding that the former
president had wasted six opportunities to record his statement via
the CrPC.
"Musharraf should get a right to defend," said Bashir.
"You and the prosecution are serving as his defence," remarked
Justice Akbar, noting that the court had said Musharraf could be
presented at anytime.
Musharraf's counsel said his client's health was not well enough for
him to appear before the court.
"How can I defend Musharraf without Section 342 statement?" he
asked.
Justice Seth said that if he is unable to defend his client, it means
that his arguments have concluded.
Bashir asked for 15 to 20 days to get Musharraf's statements
recorded.
Justice Seth said that they will review the petition for the formation
of the commission to record Musharraf's statements via Section 342,
and then the judges left the courtroom for their chambers.
LHC recommends full bench hear Musharraf's petition
Earlier in the day, the Lahore High Court (LHC) took up Musharraf's
petition against the special court hearing the high treason case
against him as well as his civil miscellaneous application that urged
the high court to halt the treason proceedings.
Justice Syed Mazahar Akbar Ali Naqvi sent the file regarding
Musharraf's case to the high court chief justice, recommending that
a full bench be formed.
On Monday, the LHC issued a notice to the federal government to
submit a written reply on Musharraf's application in which he asked
the high court to declare the proceedings pending before the special
court and all actions against him — from initiation of the high
treason complaint to the appointment of the prosecutor and
constitution of the trial court — as unconstitutional.
The court had decided that it would hear the application today
alongside the main petition submitted against the treason case
proceedings.
During today's proceedings, Additional Attorney General Chaudhry
Ishtiaq A. Khan appeared in court on the government's behalf while
Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Raheem and Azhar Siddique represented
Musharraf.
The court asked how the LHC could hear the petitions if the
petitioner is a resident of Islamabad and asked for an example of
another case on the basis of which the high court could hear the
petition. Musharraf's counsel Siddique said this had been done in the
LNG case.
The court also asked if the high treason case against Musharraf
would be heard in Islamabad today, in response to which AAG Khan
said the special court will hear the high treason case and has also said
it will announce the verdict today.
"Till the suspect's statement is not recorded under Section 342 [of
the Criminal Procedure Code], how can that happen?" the judge
asked.
On Saturday, in an application filed through advocates Khawaja
Ahmad Tariq Raheem and Azhar Siddique, Musharraf had asked the
LHC to stay the trial at the special court until his earlier petition
pending adjudication by the high court is decided. In that petition,
the former dictator had challenged the formation of a special court
holding his trial under charges of high treason and legal flaws
committed in the procedure.
IHC verdict binding on special court
After the IHC had halted the special court from delivering its
judgement last month, the members of the three-judge court were of
the view that the IHC’s order was not binding on them.
The IHC, however, ruled that its order of stopping the special court
from announcing its verdict in the treason case was binding on it
(special court) regardless of the fact that it comprises three high
court judges.
The IHC in the written order stated: "A plain reading of the Act of
1976 [The Criminal Law Amendment (Special Court) Act]
unambiguously shows that the Federal Government and the
prosecution have a pivotal role. The trial proceedings under the Act
of 1976, from initiation till conclusion, are dependent on the
presence of the prosecution appointed by the Federal
Government…The Special Court cannot, therefore, pronounce the
judgement without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to
the appointed prosecutor."
According to the IHC order, the Act of 1976 reads as a whole
unequivocally makes it obvious that the trial proceedings are entirely
dependent on the prosecution and that in its absence or without
hearing it, judgement cannot be announced.

Article 6 of the Constitution says: “Any person who

abrogates or subverts or suspends or hold in abeyance, or
attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend
or hold in abeyance the Constitution by use of force or
show force or by any other unconstitutional means shall
be guilty of high treason."

The punishment for high treason is death or lifetime

imprisonment, according to the High Treason
(Punishment) Act, 1973.Forty-nine journalists were killed
across the world in 2019, Reporters Without Borders said
on Tuesday, the lowest death toll in 16 years. The
“historically low” number mostly died covering conflicts
in Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan, the Paris-based
watchdog said, which warned that “journalism remains a
dangerous profession”.
Pakistan ranks 151 out of 153 on
global gender parity index:
World Economic Forum report
Amin Ahmed December 17, 2019

A comparison of previous rankings by the WEF shows that the

overall ranking for Pakistan has drastically slipped from 112 in
2006 to 151 in 2020.
Pakistan ranked 151 out of 153 countries on the Global
Gender Gap Index Report 2020 index, published by the
World Economic Forum (WEF) on Tuesday, only
managing to surpass Iraq and Yemen.
The scorecard for the country places Pakistan at 150 in economic
participation and opportunity, 143 in educational attainment, 149 in
health and survival and 93 in political empowerment.
A comparison of previous rankings shows that the overall ranking
for Pakistan has drastically slipped from 112 in 2006 to 151 in 2020.
Likewise, the country slipped from 112 to 150 in economic
participation and opportunity, from 110 to 143 in educational
attainment, from 112 to 149 in health and survival and from 37 to 93
in political empowerment during the same period.
The report highlights that economic opportunities for women in
Pakistan are limited with the country only managing to bridge 32.7
per cent of the gap between men and women in the workplace.
In health and survival, the gap widened to 94.6pc, which means that
women in the country do not have the same access to healthcare as
men.
Among the seven South Asian countries included in the index,
Pakistan charted at the very bottom. Bangladesh ranked 50, followed
by Nepal, 101, Sri Lanka, 102, India ,112, Maldives ,123, and
Bhutan,131.
South Asia has closed two-thirds of its gender gap. The region is
home to 860 million women, three-fourths of whom live in India.
Among the eight regions of the world, South Asia’s gender gap is the
second largest after the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
region, where only 61pc of the gender gap has been closed.
Since 2006, South Asia is the region that has progressed the most,
gaining six percentage points. If the rate of progress of the past 15
years was to continue — a very strong hypothesis — it will take 71
years to close the region’s gender gap.
In terms of female representation in parliament and in cabinets,
however, South Asia’s performance is largely in line with other
emerging regions. For example, women represent 20pc or less of the
parliament in six of the seven countries studied, the only exception
being Sri Lanka.
 PM’s bad diplomacy
Editorial December 18, 2019
IN perhaps the umpteenth U-turn of his prime ministerial
career, Imran Khan has decided not to attend the Kuala
Lumpur summit hosted by Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir Mohamad.
The pretext, provided by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi
to journalists yesterday, was that Saudi Arabia and the UAE had
reservations about the meeting and Pakistan was playing a role in
addressing them. However, he said, since these concerns could not
be addressed within the time that was available, Pakistan was
stepping back from the summit.
The concerns apparently revolved around two questions: first, would
the summit divide the ummah; and second, was it an effort to create
an organisation parallel to the OIC. He said Pakistan would continue
its efforts to bridge these gaps.
That may be so, but the fact is that Pakistan has already painted itself
into a corner and cut a sorry figure.
Prime Minister Khan’s urge to play the mediator may be a noble one
but the course of action he has taken should have been thought out
better. The divisions between blocs of Muslim countries are no secret
and neither are those issues that are sources of disagreement.
If Mr Khan thought he could successfully manage a diplomatic
tightrope act between Saudi Arabia and the UAE on one side and
Malaysia and Turkey on the other, then he should have acted on a
well-crafted plan that allowed for such diplomatic finesse. Yet he had
jumped the gun at the UN General Assembly session in New York
where he made plans with prime ministers Mahathir Mohamad and
Recep Tayyip Erdogan for joint collaborations in various fields
including launching a channel together.
Why were the ramifications of these diplomatic initiatives not
considered then? Why were the reactions of countries such as Saudi
Arabia and the UAE not factored into this policy? Why did Mr Khan
accept the invitation to attend the Malaysian summit before
understanding how this would be perceived by the leadership of the
Gulf countries?
As a result of its amateurish diplomatic manoeuvres, Pakistan has
placed itself between a rock and a hard place. It has in the process
alienated both sides without gaining anything in return except a red
face. This despite the personal investment that Mr Khan had made
in reaching out to the leaderships of these countries.
Pakistan should learn the right diplomatic lessons from this debacle.
We may harbour noble intentions about playing a role as mediator
in various conflicts but, as this foreign policy faux pas has shown,
greater thinking is needed about the costs and benefits of such
ambitious adventures.
It will now take some delicate diplomacy to smooth ruffled feathers
and mend fences that were needlessly fractured.
It may also be an opportune time for the Prime Minister’s Office to
start relying more on advice from professionals in the Foreign Office
and less on whims and fancies.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Musharraf’s conviction
Zahid Hussain Updated December 18, 2019

The writer is an author and journalist.

WHEN a former military ruler is convicted and handed the
death sentence in a country which has been under
dictatorships for the better part of its existence, it is no less
than history being made. This is the first time in Pakistan’s
history that a former military chief has been declared
guilty of high treason for suspending the country’s
Constitution.
The verdict of a special court against former president Pervez
Musharraf is a landmark development in many ways. It has
challenged the military’s predominance and demonstrates the
growing assertiveness of the judiciary. The death sentence may not
be implemented but the court ruling carries far-reaching political
implications. The verdict sends a strong message to potential
adventurists.
Musharraf’s treason trial had become an explosive political issue and
had also been a cause of tension between the military and the
government of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The military
was surely not happy with its former chief being put in the dock on
treason charges, and predictably his conviction has provoked a
robust reaction from the military leadership that had rejected the
court order. The military leadership has come out strongly in
support of its former chief.
The sentence might not be implemented but the court ruling has far-
reaching political implications.
Many Pakistani political leaders have faced treason charges, but this
is the first time that a former head of state has been convicted under
Article 6 of the Constitution. The case had dragged on for more than
five years with the bench changing several times. Musharraf was
indicted in 2014 for imposing a state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007.
There had been strong apprehension that the trial would never reach
its conclusion because of reported resistance from the military.
Despite repeated summons, Musharraf failed to appear before the
court. He has been out of the country for the past several years and
is hospitalised for serious health problems. He left the country in
March 2016. The court declared him an absconder.
It was evident that the PTI government had not been interested in
pursuing the treason case. In a dramatic move last month, it pulled
out its team of prosecutors and asked the court to halt the trial,
saying the case against the former military leader was weak. The
court verdict has worsened the government’s predicament. It
remains to be seen whether it challenges Musharraf’s conviction in
the Supreme Court. Musharraf is required to be present in the
country to file an appeal against his conviction but his return is
improbable.
Gen Musharraf took power on Oct 12, 1999, in a coup that ousted
Nawaz Sharif’s government. He stepped down as president in August
2008 under the threat of impeachment by the elected civilian
government installed after the general elections that year.
Interestingly, the treason case was filed more than five years after
Musharraf’s exit that came reportedly after a deal brokered by the
US guaranteeing indemnity to the former president.
In a cable sent to Washington and leaked by WikiLeaks, the then
American ambassador Anne Patterson reported that Asif Zardari
had told her that he was committed to giving indemnity to
Musharraf. The ambassador stressed that only the promise of
indemnity had persuaded Musharraf to step down as president. The
PPP government that came to power after the 2008 elections took
oath from Musharraf who was still the president.
But the situation changed after the return to power of Nawaz Sharif
as prime minister. For him, it seemed to be an opportunity to settle
scores with a man who not only deposed him but also put him on
trial for sedition. There’s certainly a revenge aspect to the decision to
initiate the treason trial, though the government maintained that it
only complied with the Supreme Court ruling.
Interestingly, the former military ruler was tried not for his ‘original
sin’ of staging a coup against an elected government, but for
imposing emergency and holding the Constitution in abeyance in
2007. The main argument for not charging Musharraf over the coup
was that the Supreme Court and parliament indemnified his action.
Many legal experts question whether the 2007 action alone provided
sufficient grounds for his conviction under Article 6, ignoring the
original takeover.
Facing mass protests against his government, Musharraf on Nov 3
suspended the Constitution and declared a state of emergency in
what analysts called the second coup. Most superior court judges,
including the chief justice, were detained. The action also brought an
end to his nine-year rule.
Musharraf has also been implicated in other cases including the Lal
Masjid operation. A court has ordered the confiscation of all his
properties and frozen his bank accounts.
Apparently, the military leadership had distanced itself from
Musharraf’s trial, but that’s not really the case. Commenting on
Musharraf’s high treason trial in 2015, the then army chief Gen
Raheel Sharif declared that the army would “preserve its own dignity
and institutional pride”. It was evident that Musharraf had been
protected by the military and it would not accept his conviction or
what it described as “humiliation of the institution”.
Significantly, the Musharraf verdict came a day after the Supreme
Court released its full judgement in army chief Gen Qamar Bajwa’s
extension case. The court has allowed the army chief to stay in office
for six months pending regularising of his extension through an act
of parliament. That keeps the situation uncertain. The ruling has left
many questions unanswered.
It has triggered a new debate whether it requires a constitutional
amendment or just a change in rules. The decision has deepened the
controversy over the extension of the army chief. The two court
orders demonstrate an unprecedented assertion of authority by the
country’s superior judiciary. That has led to a new conflict between
the military and the judiciary that in turn could worsen the political
crisis. It is not the end of the game yet. What happens next will be a
serious test for the government as well as the system.
The writer is an author and journalist.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
Twitter: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Trump on trial
Mahir Ali Updated December 18, 2019

THE only US president to have successfully been ousted as

the consequence of an impeachment process wasn’t
actually impeached. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 once
it became clear he would not survive a Senate trial because
too many Republican legislators were no longer prepared
to stand by him.
Read: Trump poised to become third US president to be impeached
The Republican Party was a somewhat different beast back then; 45
years later, the 45th president has no such concerns. Donald Trump
inspires a cult-like adoration among Republican senators and
congressmen, including those who identified him as a monstrosity
in 2016.
So no, history isn’t about to repeat itself, even though Trump is
almost certain to be impeached later today by the House of
Representatives, becoming only the third president in US history to
thus be indicted for high crimes and misdemeanours. However,
leading Republican senators have already indicated that the
consequent trial in the Senate will be a sham.
The impeachment proceedings were a long time coming, mainly
because many Democrats believed that Trump would welcome the
challenge. The conservative House of Representative speaker, Nancy
Pelosi, pushed back against younger members of Congress who
perceived possibly indictable offences in a substantial proportion of
the president’s domestic agenda, not least the particularly inhumane
policy of incarcerating children, including infants, in immigration
detention centres separately from their parents.
It isn’t clear if US voters care about Trump’s Kiev dealings.
Some of them were no doubt counting on special prosecutor Robert
Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election to
produce with evidence of Republican malfeasance, but it failed to
come up with a smoking gun. However, the mood changed when a
whistleblower provided an account of Trump’s efforts to persuade
Volodymyr Zelensky, the comedian recently elected as Ukraine’s
president, to announce an investigation into possible corrupt
practices on the part of Barack Obama’s vice-president Joe Biden, on
behalf of his son Hunter Biden, who once sat on the board of a
Ukrainian resources firm, as the price for a White House meeting
and the restoration of stalled military assistance.
The White House subsequently released a summary of a phone call
between Trump and Zelensky that effectively reinforced the
evidence, but the president insisted it was a beautiful conversation
that conclusively proved there was no quid pro quo.
Quid pro quo, of course, is hardly a novelty in international
diplomacy. The US never offers anything for nothing. There is a
difference, though, between demanding that Pakistan, for instance,
become more resolute in pursuing Islamist terrorists in return for
military aid, and asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Rightly or
wrongly, the former can be construed as pressure that contributes to
US national security, whereas the latter comes across as a personal
favour, given that the older Biden could well be anointed as the
Democratic challenger in next year’s election.
That would, incidentally, be monumental folly on the part of the
Democrats, who erred in 2016 by picking Hillary Clinton. But Joe
Biden would be a poor choice for reasons unrelated to Ukraine.
Besides, it is far from clear whether many US voters particularly care
about Trump’s dealings with Kiev, including the fact that he
unleashed his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and his envoy to the
EU, Gordon Sondland, on the Ukrainians while undermining, and
eventually dismissing, US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who
wrongly assumed her primary mission was to help Ukraine ward off
Russian intervention.
Perhaps an impeachment became inevitable once information on
this misadventure began to emerge. It might have been wiser,
though, to extend the articles of impeachment to include Trump’s
routine violations of the US constitution’s emoluments clauses,
intended to prevent a president from personally profiting from the
office. Trump was barely prevented, by Republican resistance, from
insisting on hosting a G7 summit at one of his Florida resorts.
It is worth recalling that Bill Clinton’s popularity actually increased
during his impeachment over lying about his affair with Monica
Lewinsky. In Trump’s case, the fact that he paid off porn stars with
campaign funds to keep them from revealing their dalliances is
another element of his despicable behaviour that finds no mention
in the impeachment documents, let alone his habitual mendacity.
The most recent calculation by Washington Post puts it at 15,413
false or misleading claims during 1,055 days in office.
That count would increase exponentially were he to be re-elected.
The impeachment is unlikely to play a big role in that context. It will
depend largely on whom the Democrats pick as their candidate. It
would be a huge mistake to aim for the status quo ante under
someone like Biden, promising a return to the conditions that made
Trump possible. There are powerful alternatives available, but a wise
choice would come as a pleasant surprise.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Broken lives
Sana Farrukh December 18, 2019

The writer is a lawyer working with Justice Project Pakistan.

A PAKISTANI in a foreign jail is not an uncommon
phenomenon. Approximately 11,000 of us are imprisoned
around the world. We cannot acknowledge International
Migrants Day this Dec 18 without also acknowledging that
most of these individuals migrated with the weight of
poverty and destitution on their backs, their feeble hope
for a better life trailing behind them. They are born
without privilege, and to uncertain futures. Upon realising
that the roads that took them further from home have led
to a dead end, they are ordinarily ill-equipped to
communicate with their captors, let alone provide a
defence. How do you pursue rights you cannot even be sure
you have?
The percentage of incarcerated individuals worldwide is rising
exponentially, and these populations are more diverse than ever
before, with many prisoners in a country’s prison being foreign
nationals. Bilateral or multilateral treaties between states in the form
of Prison Transfer Agreements (PTAs) can facilitate the transfer of a
foreign prisoner back to their state of origin, improving prison
conditions and creating a safer environment for the transferred
prisoner, one that is more conducive to rehabilitation and eventual
reintegration into society.
What is a Pakistani prisoner detained overseas facing?
Despite the potential for fruitful transfer and the incentive for states
to arrange them, as with any multi-state negotiation, PTAs are not
straightforward to enter into. Perhaps this is why, with only a
handful of functional PTAs to its credit, Pakistan has fallen behind
global standards in procuring them. There is a myriad of complex
decisions to make, including determining the eligibility and
procedure for applying for a transfer, and standard on which to
decide them, and along what lines the sentences of the sending state
can be altered, if at all, by the receiving state. Once in place, many
PTAs are suspended due to breaches between the sending and
receiving states, and an inability to trust the criminal justice system
that is going to be administering the sentence incurred for crimes in
another.
What is a Pakistani prisoner detained overseas facing? With the vast
majority of them awaiting trial and serving sentences in Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and Oman, they encounter an alien legal system and
lack the capacity to navigate it. This is a pervasive threat in a
relentless maze, and lack of language proficiency is a wound inflicted
on an accused every time they interact with the criminal justice
system. Interrogations are conducted and charges framed in a
foreign tongue; even if a lawyer is present, no translators are
provided at trial, and the sentenced person is thrust into a prison
where they cannot communicate with their contemporaries.
Perhaps one of the most compelling neologisms in this area has been
that of ‘solitary linguistic confinement’, which likens the practice of
detaining prisoners in isolation away from the general prison
population with the idea that a language barrier effectively isolates
prisoners from meaningful contact with those around them,
resulting in similar detrimental effects.
With a growing body of research identifying solitary confinement as
a means of torture, a 2013 study on linguistic isolation posed that
omitting to intervene in situations where a prisoner lacks the ability
to communicate with those around him is tantamount to a violation
of the UN Convention Against Torture. It was argued that the two
concepts share the same repercussions for prisoners, including
heightened risk of developing mental illness.
Disoriented, alone and afraid, cultural barriers can make even basic
non-verbal courtesy and humanity difficult to perceive. Lacking
normal socialisation, these prisoners are further marginalised as
they cannot undertake educational courses, or participate in most
employment or training opportunities while incarcerated, and are
far less able than their counterparts to re-enter society as productive
individuals upon their release.
What does a person do when they return from limbo in a foreign
land, having lost ties to their support systems, and are left
permanently vulnerable due to isolation and perpetual uncertainty?
They piece together their lives as best they can, and many lose
further due to poverty and illness. To lose the rehabilitative value of
prison, but also lose your liberty, to forget yourself while grappling
with the laws of another land, but also to have your family forget you
— this is a travesty. Supposedly equal under our Constitution, we
relegate them to permanently broken lives, no matter the length of
their sentence.
Pakistan must utilise the PTAs it has and negotiate further
agreements with other states immediately to rescue its citizens
abroad. After contributing to the forces that drove them out of this
country, the least we can do is give them the chance to repair and
rebuild themselves, and gain the strength to do so from the roots of
their own land.
The writer is a lawyer working with Justice Project Pakistan.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Extension verdict
Editorial December 18, 2019
THE 42-page detailed Supreme Court verdict has provided
further clarity in the imbroglio surrounding the extension
of the army chief’s tenure. Its short order on Nov 28 had
granted Gen Qamar Bajwa a six-month extension and
directed parliament to enact within that time necessary
legislation regulating the terms and conditions of the office
of COAS. The judgement announced on Monday holds that
failure to comply will mean the incumbent army chief
would stand retired from the time his tenure ended in
November. Once again, the court expressed incredulity
that there exists no provision in the law for extending the
army’s chief tenure. In his additional note, Chief Justice of
Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa pointed out that the office of the
COAS is “powerful … in ways more than one” and that
“unbridled power or position, like unstructured
discretion, is dangerous”.
The PTI government and parliament must consider the situation
carefully. After all, the outcome will have profound implications, not
only for civilian supremacy, but for the military itself. Tenure
extensions sanctioned by parliament would acquire a legitimacy that
could upend a promotion process that should be marked by
transparency and predictability. The Supreme Court has in its
verdict sagaciously observed that “…in strengthening institutions,
nations prosper”. Indeed, Imran Khan had himself taken the same
position when it came to the extension of then COAS Gen Ashfaq
Kayani during the PPP government. And yet, a few weeks ago, Mr
Khan remarked during an interview that he had decided to give Gen
Bajwa an extension soon after assuming office. That gave the
unfortunate impression that factors other than the “regional security
environment” — the official reason given for the extension —
accounted for the prime minister having made up his mind so
prematurely. Perhaps Mr Khan should consider the views of the
other principal character in this saga, the army chief himself — or at
least, his views as articulated by the military’s public relations arm.
The ISPR has more than once asserted that the COAS was reluctant
to accept an extension. Even after the spectacle that the government
made of itself in its handling of the issue, the ISPR assured the public
that it was not Gen Bajwa but the government that was hell-bent on
having him continue to head the army. That may well be the case:
one would hope that every military official considers the interests of
his country and his institution above those of his own.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Cyberwars
Editorial December 18, 2019
CONTEMPORARY propagandists seem to understand one
ancient truism better than others: ‘all warfare is based on
deception’. Battles for winning the minds of people are
increasingly fought in cyberspace, but the underlying
motive behind propaganda has remained unchanged over
the centuries. Today, undiscerning ‘consumers’ of news
often believe whatever they stumble upon, particularly if it
confirms an existing bias, without bothering to do a
background check on the authenticity or credibility of the
source. Luckily, there are a few organisations that act as
watchdogs, helping us distinguish the real from the ‘fake
news’ in the sea of information. On Monday, the Brussels-
based not-for-profit EU DisinfoLab published a startling
report on its unearthing of 265 ‘fake news’ websites that
were promoted by a handful of ‘fake NGOs’ and ‘fake think
tanks’ — all linked to a single, controversial Indian
company. This network predominantly propagated an
anti-Pakistan agenda to decision-makers in the EU and US.
While the discovery of such propagandistic, and often
blatantly plagiaristic, websites is not all that unexpected,
what stands out is just how far this particular network
went to create the illusion of authenticity — and just how
easily so many, presumably intelligent, people fell for it.
Even more worrying is the shameless exploitation of very
real human rights abuses faced by marginalised groups to
further jingoistic arguments and claims of superiority on
the other side.
Earlier this month, this paper had published an article that looked
into how the majority of Twitter hashtags were manufactured by
coordinated groups in an attempt to deceive the public about
genuine support for certain causes, individuals or institutions. And
last year, Science published its findings on the largest-ever study on
fake news, which examined the behaviour of Twitter users.
Confirming the worst, they found a much greater proclivity in
humans for sharing false information over the truth, particularly
when it came to political news. That is not an encouraging reality to
live with.
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 A tale of three elections
Rafia Zakaria December 18, 2019

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political

philosophy.
THE decade is coughing its last, it seems in a particularly
glum mood. Protests rage across India as Modi’s republic
tries to excise citizenship rights from Muslims. Wars
continue to rage in India-held Kashmir, Syria, portions of
Iraq and Afghanistan. Millions are dying on the shores of
the Mediterranean as they try to reach whichever
European nation possible in search of a better life, and
even more are dying in the Sahara trying to get to the
shores where they can undertake the dangerous voyage.
That it is a perilous and unforgiving world is obvious.
It is also a rapidly changing world; two elections that have taken
place this year, and one more that will take place next year, will
together redefine the way the world has been for many decades prior.
The most recent of these three elections took place this past
Thursday in the UK. After three years of being stuck on Brexit and
unable to leave the EU with the given deal, the British people finally
delivered the British Conservative party a huge mandate ensuring
that Prime Minister Boris Johnson will be the top man in Britain for
the first half of the next decade.
Two that have taken place this year, and one more, will together
redefine the world.
It is a momentous occasion. PM Johnson will undoubtedly ensure
(as he has promised) a swift and succinct exit from the EU. With
Brexit will come a more complex set of mechanisms that determine
travel to the UK. While Pakistanis may not be particularly affected
by that (it is already difficult enough to obtain visas to the UK)
British Pakistanis will see some consequences. Mr Johnson has
made critical remarks comparing Muslim women who wear burkas
to “letter-boxes”. The London attacks that took place on 7/7 in the
first decade of the millennium and ensuing ones such as that on
London Bridge a couple of years ago, along with the arrests of
hundreds of ‘terror operatives’ of various affiliations have
undoubtedly provided fodder for his Islamophobic views. Beyond
just that, Mr Johnson’s books — one a novel titled Seventy-two
Virgins: A Comedy of Errors (whose content can be easily guessed
at) and another a historical account of Rome and his political and
historical views (he included a special section on the “rise of
Islamism”) all point to a man who is deeply anti-Islam. British
Muslims are likely to bear the brunt of this belief that is likely to be
echoed in the policies the Johnson administration, that now has an
absolute majority, will enact.
The Indian election delivered an incontrovertible majority to
Narendra Modi. Just like Mr Johnson’s hatred evolved in the post
9/11 years, PM Modi has repeatedly made Indian Muslims the
scapegoats on which to pin every failing. In the years during which
he has been in power, the entire Indian populace seems to have been
whetted into a Nazi-like fervour bent on excluding and excoriating
Muslims. Rising since the Mumbai attacks, this desire to exclude
Muslims has of late taken the bizarre form of actually denying
citizenship to hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Assam. Living
close to the Bangladesh border, the poor people often do not have
access to the trove of documents that the government now demands
as “proof” that their forbears and themselves were born in territorial
India. Even as the Modi government has passed this law, it has also
introduced another which will make it easier for specifically non-
Muslim citizens of adjoining countries to take refuge in India. The
‘Hindu’ nation, with over 250 million Muslims, seems to be — under
Modi — determined to use every legal, social, military and political
method to isolate and castigate its Muslims.
The third election in the world’s transformation will take place in
November next year. On the first Tuesday in November 2020,
Americans will go to vote and decide whether they want to keep
President Donald Trump for another four years. Mr Trump’s
Islamophobia, his constant referral to Muslims as a ‘problem’
people, his demonising of Muslims at his regular rallies, not to
mention his administration’s travel ban that continues to bar
individuals from mostly Muslim nations, make clear exactly what his
views are.
If elected for another term, a Trump freed of concerns over re-
election could easily crack down even harder on American Muslims.
Already, ‘de-naturalisation’ taskforces have been set up to
investigate anyone the administration deems may have lied on their
citizenship applications. A second term Trump administration will
undoubtedly deploy these mechanisms to further persecute
American Muslims.
The sum of the three elections, and the re-election and election of
strong-arm politicians with a history of hating Muslims, should
concern everyone. While small minorities of Muslims may have
caused the terror attacks in these countries, literally millions of
Muslims from Los Angeles to Delhi are now going to face the
consequences of that hatred, their children mistreated and
discriminated against in the only home countries that they know.
The only cause for hope appears to be the premise that when the
hatred of Muslims becomes such a fixture of the political schema of
these electorates, it eventually stops being the novel technique that
can unite fearful populations. The elections this time may have
delivered (and in the US case have as yet to deliver) terrible news,
but if the ubiquity of Islamophobia and the readiness to blame
everything on Muslims is working so well this time, it may not yield
as much traction later. Of course, this is not welcome news to those
Muslims who live in any one of these three countries; four and five
years can be a long time to wait for better days.
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political
philosophy.
rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2019
 Wednesday, 18 Dec 2019 Today's Paper

Corruption and governance

By Dr Pervez Tahir Published: December 13, 2019

The writer is a senior economist. He can be contacted at

pervez.tahir@tribune.com.pk
At the risk of oversimplification, it is possible to label the main
political parties by looking at their favourite big ticket item in public
spending. The PML-N loved mega projects in the transport sector,
while agriculture and rural development was closest to the heart of
the PPP. When the PPP government left, spending on its favourite
sector was twice that of the transport sector. By the time the PML-
N government exited, it was the other way round. Since assuming
power, the PTI leadership has been hiding behind the poor state of
the economy. The mantra is that all promises will be fulfilled once
money is available. Now its platform is against corruption, for good
governance and human development. While human development
requires tons of money to make good the chronic deficit, the other
two do not exactly require money beyond the existing means of the
government. If anything, concerted action here saves money.
However, even these crucial areas of reform have suffered from the
noisy environ of “wait till we have money”.

As the IMF programme has now been pronounced successful in

stabilising the economy, the talk of much-needed reform has begun.
This is where the seeds of a never-ending relationship are sown and
re-sown. Instead of any indigenous thinking informed by the
experience of similarly placed countries, donors are allowed to come
up with all kinds of reform projects to satisfy our need for money
and their desire to reform us. The latest example is of a trade and
investment reforms project being negotiated with the World Bank
under the high sounding Pakistan Goes Global programme to secure
a loan of $250 million. Pakistan is a graveyard of donor projects in
the name of competitiveness. Surely, it added to the debt burden.
For restoring competitiveness, the country had to wait for a massive
devaluation. The FBR reform has been a similar donor-happy
disaster.

In the simplest terms, corruption is abuse of public office by the

incumbent for private gain. Governance is a set of institutions to
deliver public services. If these institutions are functioning
effectively, corruption is largely prevented. Credible anti-corruption
bodies also act in ways that put the fear of Moses in the hearts of
potential abusers. This is for grand corruption influencing policy.
Petty corruption inherited from the colonial days and has since
spread to almost all spheres of life requires a cultural change for
diminishing returns to set in. A government cannot eliminate it in a
tenure of five years. But there has to be a beginning somewhere.
The marriage of money and connection cannot happen without
the nikah khwan i.e. the bureaucracy. That is why all reform focuses
on it. Policy thinking as well as execution lies in its domain.
Historically oriented towards law and order, the same bureaucracy
without any structural change assumed the tasks of economic
development in the postcolonial period. The outcome is the worst of
both worlds — attempts to reform skirt the fringes by changes in the
ACR system, superficial training, and posting and transfer rules. No
attention is paid to whether or not a centralised civil service can
deliver effectively in a three-tier system of government. Nor is there
any serious move away from the jacks of all trades towards masters
of needed trades.
More ominously, democracy and the federal dispensation,
especially the 7th NFC Award and the 18th Amendment, are seen as
harbingers of rising corruption and deteriorating governance. A
look around the world shows that the least corrupt countries are
mostly democracies, not autocracies or oligarchies. What is
required is a strategy to overcome resistance that breeds instability.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 13th, 2019.

 Wednesday, 18 Dec 2019 Today's Paper

CRC@30 — time to revisit

commitments to children
By Aida Girma Published: December 13, 2019

Children play with tyres in Islamabad, Pakistan.

The year 2019 is a special year for the children of the world. It is the
30th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC).

On November 20, 1989, world leaders came together in the General

Assembly to adopt the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child. Since then, the Convention has become the most ratified
human rights treaty in history.

The Convention underscores the accountability of governments,

civil society, parents and the international community to fulfil their
obligations towards the realisation of the rights of children, and to
ensure that these rights remain inalienable, integral and indivisible
from the universal human rights framework as we know it.

The CRC has transformed the way we view children today. It has set
in motion a process of social change, building the foundation for a
world where all rights for all children are to be guaranteed and
protected. These include the rights to survival, development,
protection and participation. Under the Convention, children are no
longer the properties of their parents or wards of the state. They are
individuals with their own rights.

Thirty years on, child rights have not changed, but childhood has.
CRC has helped to transform children’s lives. It has inspired
governments to change laws and policies and make investments so
that more children get the healthcare and nutrition they need to
survive and develop; fewer children are forced to leave school, to do
hazardous work, or to get married at an early age and there are
better systems to protect children from violence and exploitation. It
has also enabled more children to have a voice and participate in
their societies.

Since the adaption of the CRC, important advances have been made
in health, education, nutrition and access to basic services for
children and adolescents. The global under-five mortality rate has
fallen by about 60% as millions of children have been saved through
timely vaccination against preventable diseases. The proportion of
primary school-aged children not in school decreased from 18% to
8%. The guiding principles of the CRC — non-discrimination; the
best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and
development; and the right to participation — have influenced
numerous constitutions, laws, policies and practices. This has had a
positive impact on the well-being of the population and the
increasing number of children who can exercise their rights. Not to
mention significant economic and social progress.

Unfortunately, despite the progress that has been made, millions of

children, especially the poorest and most marginalised, are being
left behind. Poverty, discrimination and marginalisation continue
to leave millions of the most disadvantaged children at risk.
Children are physically, physiologically and epidemiologically most
at risk of the impacts of the climate crisis. Although more children
are immunised than ever before, a slowdown in immunisation
coverage rates over the past decade is threatening to reverse hard-
won gain in children’s health, and the number of out-of-school
children has stagnated and learning outcomes for those in school
remain poor.

As one of the first countries to ratify the CRC within a year of its
adoption, Pakistan’s commitment and efforts made for realising and
delivering child rights are commendable. A lot has been done during
the last 30 years to prioritise children’s issues, but a lot more needs
to be done. Pakistan has one of the highest infant mortality rates as
thousands of children under five years of age die every year from
preventable diseases. The nutritional status of children is poor, with
approximately one in four children under five affected by stunting
and an estimated 22.6 million aged 5-16 are not attending school
and some are forced into early marriage and child labour.

Every child has the right to survive and thrive, but with a neonatal
mortality rate of 42 per 1,000 live births, newborns in Pakistan
continue to die because of conditions, such as low birth weight,
hypothermia and sepsis, that can be managed with cost-effective
interventions delivered along the continuum of care during pre-
pregnancy, antenatal, intrapartum, delivery, postpartum, and
postnatal periods for mothers and their newborns.

Pakistan is also confronted with a triple burden of malnutrition

affecting adolescents, pregnant and lactating women and young
children as revealed by the National Nutrition Survey 2018, and
very little has changed since 2001. An estimated 40% or about 12
million children under the age of five are stunted, making Pakistan,
one of the countries with the highest numbers of stunted children
in the world. There is, however, a renewed commitment by
policymakers to reduce malnutrition through evidence-based
multisectoral response, focusing on the first 1,000 days of a child’s
life.

As for the right to education, 22.6 million children between the ages
of 5-16 are out-of-school in Pakistan. Disparities based on gender,
socio-economic status and geography are significant. We need to
ensure that all children, girls and boys, get quality basic education
through formal and non-formal learning programmes, and that
learning environments are safe and child-friendly, with special
attention to children in the most deprived communities.

Every child has the right to grow up in a safe, protective and

nurturing environment, to be free from all forms of violence,
exploitation and neglect. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that
children in the country face violence, abuse and exploitation. There
is a need to strengthen child protection systems and build the
capacities of the government and communities to promote the right
of the child to protection.

Children’s rights are at a crossroads. We must act on the promise

made 30 years ago, accelerate progress already made and develop
new solutions to translate rights into realities. And most
importantly, we must listen to children and young people
themselves, who are calling for change. Hence, while children face
new threats to their rights, they also have new opportunities to
realise their rights. The CRC@30 is an opportunity to revisit
commitments to children and accelerate our efforts so that all
children in Pakistan realise their rights as enshrined in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 13th, 2019.

 Wednesday, 18 Dec 2019 Today's Paper

As EU-US relations falter

By Azhar Azam Published: December 12, 2019

The writer is a private professional and writes on geopolitical issues

and regional conflicts
President Trump’s stubborn “America First” strategy not only mills
him to slap tariffs on rival China’s goods, but his invasive economic
policy unequivocally targets products of American allies —
including Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and the EU.

All of Trump’s contrived measures to drive every other country

down to his taxing tariff policy are yet to produce any positive
signals in the US economic statistics, which posted a nine-month
US trade deficit increase of $24.8 billion or 5.4% as compared to the
previous year.

Decreased exports and increased imports are not making Trump

soften his hostile approach towards the entire world. Instead, it
cajoles him into persisting his bitter US trade unilateralism and
protectionism stance that is poised to wipe off $700 billion from the
global economy by 2020.

Trump is now mulling over the option of launching a trade

investigation against the EU, to justify imposing tariffs on the bloc’s
exports to the US. Earlier, he missed the November 14 deadline to
follow through his threat of 25% tariffs on European cars and car
parts.

The move came after Washington pushed Brussels to cut tariffs on

American lobsters and chemicals, but EU trade chief Cecilia
Malmström rejected the US mini-deal bid, calling for a reciprocal
American action for European exports. The EU is additionally
critical of Trump labelling Europe a trade “foe”, resounding that he
supports Brexit and is the first American president to openly speak
“against a united Europe”.

Trump’s trade war onto the EU and forthright intervention in the

alliance’s sovereign affairs are gradually distancing the US from
some key Nato allies. The bloc is now seeking out China to work with
EU on compatible issues such as climate change, WTO reforms,
strengthening international peace and security and promoting
sustainable development.

Echoing for a combined effort in the recently concluded 3 rd EU-

China CEO and Former Senior Officials’ Dialogue in Beijing, the
European side also petitioned China for a “comprehensive strategic
partnership, advancing economic and trade relations, and
promoting innovations”.

In the age of trade unilateralism and protectionism, economic

relations between China and EU continue to prosper as bilateral
trade increased 3.1% to reach about $580 billion till October 2019.
The increased economic collaboration will surely tone down the
impacts of the trade war and rebalance the global economy.

The EU is China’s largest trading partner and China is EU’s second-

largest. As Beijing poured $318 billion of investments in the EU
during the last 10 years, 45% more than the US, both sides are
expected to sign a bilateral investment treaty next year.

In view of the EU’s growing desire to reinforce its rapprochement

with China, Beijing may extend its willingness to strongly
implement the framed EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for
Cooperation that emphasises working together for “peace,
prosperity and sustainable development and their commitment to
multilateralism”.

Additionally, the EU plans to connect Europe and Asia with Chinese

help to improve the economic, social, fiscal, financial and
environmental sustainability of Eurasian connectivity and
interoperability, which is also a vital part of the Chinese BRI.

While the US is continuing to grill the EU across multiple fronts,

China could increase its economic, strategic, political and
diplomatic engagements with Europe.

As officials from China, Russia, France, Germany and Britain met

in Vienna on December 6, they committed to implement the US-
blasted Iran nuclear deal, which has caused the EU-Iran trade to
plunge by nearly 75% from January to September.
With its allies, Beijing may utilise multilateral international forums
to repel Washington’s crass campaign against the global world while
the EU could deepen its economic, political and strategic relations
with China.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 12th, 2019.

Did Pakistan lose more than just
a war in 1971?
History is marred with the boisterous accounts of the ones who
won. History doesn't pay much heed to the ones who lose and have
been known to present a one-sided view of a story. The same thing
happened to Pakistan in 1971 when Indian propaganda flourished
and Pakistan lost its dignity.
Brig Basit Shuja SI(M)-Retd-December 17, 2019

History is written by the victorious and they always glorify

themselves and demonize the looser. Generations pass through
buying the captors’ fabricated plot while it takes decades to correct
the distortions of history muddied by the conquerors. Post world
war-2, Germans are presented as human devils devoid of any
civilized values while the victorious American and Brits are depicted
as angels in human molds. In this foray of narratives, the biggest
casualty is the TRUTH.
Come December each year, the nation is reminded of the break-up
of the country and the humiliation suffered by its armed forces at the
hands of its bitterest adversary. For past 48 years, world, as well as
the Pakistanis, were fed on one-sided toxic Indo-Bangla narrative
with regards to the tragedy of 1971 in which Pakistan Army was
presented as a wild horde of ruffians, mainly from Punjab, devoid of
any professional and moral values intrinsically associated with the
profession of soldiering.

Pakistan Army was presented as an oppressor rather

than a national army that was trying to control a foreign-
sponsored insurgency in its country

Although after a lapse of 48 years a lot of realities and pieces of

evidence have come to light, not all have been published. Subsequent
to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s open and fulfilled
admission in dismembering Pakistan, sans guilt; Pakistani
intellectuals, opinion makers and academia also are coming out of
the apologetic mindset and have started to view and analyze the facts
in a correct perspective. However, it will take considerable time and
effort to mitigate the effects of nearly five decades of venomous and
one-sided Indo-Bangla propaganda and to present the historical
realities to derive correct takeaways.

Internal disharmony provides golden opportunities to a powerful

and sinister neighbor like India to achieve its aims and objectives.
The use of force to solve a political problem or achieve a political
objective is never durable. It is at best a temporary solution. Pakistan
Army was dragged into quelling an insurgency in erstwhile East
Pakistan.

The operation was codenamed ‘Search Light’ commenced on 25

March 1971. Though officially its termination was never announced,
however, by mid-May 1971, it was considered that the main
objectives of Operation Search Light have been achieved and
restoration of infrastructure work commenced by the end of May
1971. The military administration in East Pakistan did begin to pacify
the Bengalis after military action. They tried to repair the
psychological and physical damages resulting from the unavoidable
action taken against the anti-state elements.

Read more: Fall of Dhaka 1971: Questioning the Iconic 3 million

Immediately on commencement of Operation ‘Search Light’, Indian

propaganda machinery went overboard to splash exaggerated
success stories of Mukti Bahini and fabricated human rights
violations of Pakistan Army (which continues to-date). Military
administration’s decision to expel foreign journalists from Dacca, at
the start of the Operation was a serious mistake that not only isolated
Pakistan from the rest of the world but also the international
community was fed one-sided Indian propaganda.

Pakistan Army was presented as an oppressor rather than a national

army that was trying to control a foreign-sponsored insurgency in its
country. In the terrible violence of fratricidal insurgency, the victims
were from every ethnic and religious group but only the Indian
sponsored Bengalis were presented as victims.

After a short war, India won and Bangladesh emerged on the globe
as a new country. As the war ended, the victorious Indians presented
professional Pakistan Army as rapists and mass murderers, though
no substantial evidence or a bipartisan commission was formed to
probe the allegations. Since it was the conqueror’s one-sided
propaganda therefore no one academically analyzed the veracity of
blame game.

Mass rapes of villages of Kunan and Poshpura of IOK and

unidentified mass graves of thousands of Kashmiris are
only a few examples as to how the Indian Army treats its
subject
While discussing the history of the 1971 tragedy, atrocities
committed by Mukti Bahini against the non-Bengali population are
often overlooked and seldom mentioned. The war in former East
Pakistan ended on 16 December 1971. On 28 February 1973,
Bangladesh Government issued a Presidential Order No. 16 of 1973
which was called “BANGLADESH NATIONAL LIBERATION
STRUGGLE (INDEMNITY) ORDER 1973“.

In this order, general indemnity was granted to all Bengali

perpetrators who committed crimes leading up to the liberation of
Bangladesh and it covered the period from the 1st day of March 1971
to the 28th day of February 1972. Here the question arises that if
Mukti Bahini was only struggling against Pakistan Army, then why
Presidential pardon was extended till 28 February 1972?

Who continued to be in the cross-hair of Bengali ‘Freedom Fighters’

even after termination of war? The contents of the Presidential Order
clearly imply that the non-Bengali population continued to face the
wrath of Mukti Bahini even after the end of the war. Further research
on this by scholars like Dr. Sarmila Bose and historians may
highlight the miseries of west Pakistanis who were left behind after
16 December 1971. Pakistani academia may choose this to be a topic
of research for their future discourse.

Read more: Bangladesh vs Pakistan: What is Hasina’s Real Problem?

After 9/11 owing to US involvement in Afghanistan, the South Asian

region witnessed a new and deadly wave of violence in which foreign-
sponsored armed groups also destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan Army
had to fight another bout against the Indo-Afghan sponsored
insurgents in Balochistan, former Federally Administered Tribal
Areas(FATA) and urban insurgency in Karachi.

Pakistan Army had also struggled against another insurgency in

Balochistan in the 70s. Contrary to the prevalent Indo-Bangla
narrative which blames of mass murders and rapes to soldiers of
Pakistan Army, not a single case of such nature was ever reported
while Pakistan Army not only successfully operated in the ambit of
law but also engaged in winning hearts and minds campaign in areas
from where insurgents were flushed out. The professionalism of the
Pakistan Army received recognition at home and abroad. The basic
professional and moral fabric of the armed forces of Pakistan even
today remain the same as it was in 1971.

It is time not to see the ‘villains’ from the lens of victorious

rather unmask the ugly faces of heroes of the ‘Liberation
War’.

Indian Armed Forces have been granted blanket powers through the
Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) in suppressing the
freedom movements in various parts including Indian Occupied
Kashmir(IOK). Their acts of omission and commission are not
brought under scrutiny yet several cases of mass murder and rapes
have been reported which are seldom covered in International
media.

Mass rapes of villages of Kunan and Poshpura of IOK and

unidentified mass graves of thousands of Kashmiris are only a few
examples as to how the Indian Army treats its subject. Recently
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN Human
Rights Chief have issued their reports, separately, highlighting grave
human rights violations by the Indian Army against the Kashmiris.
The use of pellet guns and clamping of brutal curfew restrictions in
IOK since 5 August 2019 are atrocities and repressions new to
human history.

Read more: Break-up of Pakistan & creation of Bangladesh;

rethinking after 40 years of the fall of Dacca?
A fair amount of writing purported to be from the ‘Bangladeshi
Liberation Movement’ perspective falls below the standard of
accuracy. Unfortunately in Pakistan, there exists a class of opinion
makers and academia for whom all the narratives emanating from
India are sacrosanct.

After 48 years, it is important to clear the distortions of history and

present a balanced and factual account by collecting the testimony
of non-Bengali survivors of massacres and atrocities committed by
Bengalis against the non-Bengali civilian population in erstwhile
East Pakistan, as well. It is time not to see the ‘villains’ from the lens
of victorious rather unmask the ugly faces of heroes of the ‘Liberation
War’.

Brig Basit Shuja SI(M)-Retd has done masters in international

relations from University of Karachi. He has a vast and assorted
experience of kinetic and non-kinetic operations during his over
three decades of military service in Pakistan Army. The retired
officer is currently working in the corporate sector.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not
necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.